# Questions on Christianity (Again...) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952 "2010-08-30T02:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 35
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/681 "2010-09-08T02:23:14Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1. Oh yes, of course. ‘It’s in this thread’. Another unsubstantited claim. Oh, it’s here, you just have no intention of debating, so I’m not gonna look for it. > [@](#): > > 1. Ah now wre making progress. So you suggest that the mechanism for evolutionary morality is ‘an impulse’. But what triggers this impulse? Say in the case of killing ones brother? Your brain. People who have brain trauma sometimes experience changes to morality. But you’ve already been told this several times and will dismiss it because you have no intention of actually debating. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/682 "2010-09-08T02:23:35Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1. Ah now wre making progress. So you suggest that the mechanism for evolutionary morality is ‘an impulse’. But what triggers this impulse? Say in the case of killing ones brother? > > It’s a genetic neurological response to stimuli. It’s “triggered” by genes. You have been shown abundant evidence of this and a plethora of links. Firstly you cannot point to evidence that a neurological response to stimuli is repsonsible for a moral decision, so stop posturing. Secondly, what stimuli? What stimuli tells us not to murder our brother. Some specifics please. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/683 "2010-09-08T02:27:31Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1. Oh yes, of course. ‘It’s in this thread’. Another unsubstantited claim. > > Oh, it’s here, you just have no intention of debating, so I’m not gonna look for it. > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. Ah now wre making progress. So you suggest that the mechanism for evolutionary morality is ‘an impulse’. But what triggers this impulse? Say in the case of killing ones brother? > > Your brain. People who have brain trauma sometimes experience changes to morality. But you’ve already been told this several times and will dismiss it because you have no intention of actually debating. It triggers ‘in’ your brain, but that isn’t the trigger. There must be a mechainsm that is the catalyst or trigger for the response. What is that mechanism? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/684 "2010-09-08T02:40:56Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > It’s a genetic neurological response to stimuli. It’s “triggered” by genes. You have been shown abundant evidence of this and a plethora of links. > > Firstly you cannot point to evidence that a neurological response to stimuli is repsonsible for a moral decision, so stop posturing. A number of links have already been provided showing the evidence for this. To continue to deny it at this point is simpy dishonest. > [@](#): > > Secondly, what stimuli? What stimuli tells us not to murder our brother. It’s not the stimuli that stops us, Sparky, it’s the negative emotional _response_ to the stimuli. We don’t eat rotten meat because ut stinks. We don’t kill our brother because it "stinks: emotionally. > [@](#): > > Some specifics please. You can read any of the links that were provided by **Kimera**. You know they were provided. Your continued requests for cites and details that have already been multiply provided are exceedingly disingenuous. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/685 "2010-09-08T02:48:38Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Firstly you cannot point to evidence that a neurological response to stimuli is repsonsible for a moral decision, so stop posturing. > > A number of links have already been provided showing the evidence for this. To continue to deny it at this point is simpy dishonest. > > It’s not the stimuli that stops us, Sparky, it’s the negative emotional _response_ to the stimuli. We don’t eat rotten meat because ut stinks. We don’t kill our brother because it "stinks: emotionally. > > > [@](#): > > > > Some specifics please. > > You can read any of the links that were provided by **Kimera**. You know they were provided. Your continued requests for cites and details that have already been multiply provided are exceedingly disingenuous. I’ll ignore your continued evasion to stay with the current point, but do stay with the issue. What is the source of the stimuli that tells us not to kill our brother? It;s a simple question, particularly given your claim to a purely naturalistic explanation. You must somehow posit a physical, neurological reaction that stops us in our tracks. What is it’s source? What makes it kick in? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/686 "2010-09-08T02:50:33Z")
Look I’ll make it easier for you. Are you suggesting that we instinctively and unconsciously know not to kill our brother because it will deplete our gene pool in some remote manner? Is that part of the trigger? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/687 "2010-09-08T03:03:38Z")
[quote=“aigonz, post:685, topic:551952”] > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > A number of links have already been provided showing the evidence for this. To continue to deny it at this point is simpy dishonest. > > You can read any of the links that were provided by **Kimera**. You know they were provided. Your continued requests for cites and details that have already been multiply provided are exceedingly disingenuous. I have looked through most (not all) of the sites quoted by Kimera. I suggest you should do the same before claiming these as ‘evidence’. The sites conatin postulations, opinion, suggestions and possibilities, all with an assumption to evolution. Here is a typical example: "Group Competition, Reproductive Leveling, and the Evolution of Human Altruism Samuel Bowles Humans behave altruistically in natural settings and experiments. A possible explanation—that groups with more altruists survive when groups compete—has long been judged untenable on empirical grounds for most species. But there have been no empirical tests of this explanation for humans. My empirical estimates show that genetic differences between early human groups are likely to have been great enough so that lethal intergroup competition could account for the evolution of altruism. Crucial to this process were distinctive human practices such as sharing food beyond the immediate family, monogamy, and other forms of reproductive leveling. These culturally transmitted practices presuppose advanced cognitive and linguistic capacities, possibly accounting for the distinctive forms of altruism found in our species. Santa Fe Institute, 1399 Hyde Park Road, Santa Fe, NM 87501, USA, and Universitá di Siena, 17 Piazza San Francesco, Siena, Italy." [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/5805/1569](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/5805/1569) Note the following words: ‘estimates’ ‘likely to have been’ ‘could’ Is this really all you have? ---
**Author:** ![Blut\_Aus\_Nord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Blut\_Aus\_Nord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blut_Aus_Nord)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/688 "2010-09-08T03:07:08Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Look I’ll make it easier for you. > > Are you suggesting that we instinctively and unconsciously know not to kill our brother because it will deplete our gene pool in some remote manner? Is that part of the trigger? We have a natural aversion to murder, which developed from premoral sentiments in earlier primates that created better, more successful societies. It is a hardwired emotional response. It’s not because we know it will “deplete the gene pool”, it’s just an emotional response that evolved out of necessity for us as a social animal. If it did not exist, obvious problems would arise. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/689 "2010-09-08T03:13:58Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> In what way does God’s existence deny physics when God is not governed by the natural universe? You just answered your own question. God is such a violation of everything we know about physics that you have to claim that he is “not governed by the natural universe”. > [@aigonz](#): > > 2\> The form and nature of our universe says nothing to the likelihood of others. This is just presumption. No, it’s pointing out the obvious fact that the existence of our universe demonstrates that universes are possible. Support that, again, the “god hypothesis” lacks. > [@aigonz](#): > > 3\> You don’t accept the God hypothesis because you don’t want to. It is a statement of belief. No, it’s pointing out the obvious. There’s zero evidence that it’s true, zero evidence that it’s possible, it’s part of an ideology (religion) that has always proven false in the past, explains nothing, and makes no sense upon examination. It is a blatantly silly idea, and no amount of insistence that is must be taken seriously will make it any less obviously silly. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/690 "2010-09-08T03:19:36Z")
> [@Chakra Nadmara](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Look I’ll make it easier for you. > > > > Are you suggesting that we instinctively and unconsciously know not to kill our brother because it will deplete our gene pool in some remote manner? Is that part of the trigger? > > We have a natural aversion to murder, which developed from premoral sentiments in earlier primates that created better, more successful societies. It is a hardwired emotional response. It’s not because we know it will “deplete the gene pool”, it’s just an emotional response that evolved out of necessity for us as a social animal. If it did not exist, obvious problems would arise. 1. In a tooth and claw society, how did the species survive until this aversion evolved? 2. Why is this aversion no longer hardwired into all animals? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/691 "2010-09-08T03:22:26Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> In what way does God’s existence deny physics when God is not governed by the natural universe? > > You just answered your own question. God is such a violation of everything we know about physics that you have to claim that he is “not governed by the natural universe”. > > No, it’s pointing out the obvious fact that the existence of our universe demonstrates that universes are possible. Support that, again, the “god hypothesis” lacks. > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 3\> You don’t accept the God hypothesis because you don’t want to. It is a statement of belief. > > No, it’s pointing out the obvious. There’s zero evidence that it’s true, zero evidence that it’s possible, it’s part of an ideology (religion) that has always proven false in the past, explains nothing, and makes no sense upon examination. It is a blatantly silly idea, and no amount of insistence that is must be taken seriously will make it any less obviously silly. 1\> God cannot be a violation of something He is not subject to. Your proposition is simply illogical. 2\> Other universes are ‘possible’. The existence of God is ‘possible’. Both can be assumed as ‘possible’ from the existence of one universe. 3\> The existence of a god is demonstrated as possible by the evidenece of morality and design, nether of which currently enjoy a satisfactory naturalistic explanation. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/692 "2010-09-08T03:28:27Z")
Let’s clarify something here. Is the naturalistic position that an aversion to murder is: a\> a hard wired emotional response, unrelated to ‘survival’ as such, or is it b\> a neurological response to a subconscious desire for survival? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/693 "2010-09-08T03:49:25Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> God cannot be a violation of something He is not subject to. Your proposition is simply illogical. More silliness. Your claiming that he isn’t subject to natural law IS claiming that he’s a violation of those laws. > [@aigonz](#): > > 2\> Other universes are ‘possible’. The existence of God is ‘possible’. Both can be assumed as ‘possible’ from the existence of one universe. Even more nonsense. No, the existence of the universe doesn’t “imply god”, nothing does. You are attempting to equate two very different things; we have a universe, right here. We are in it. Claiming that there may be another is just claiming that might be more of something that we already know exists. You can’t point to a god and claim that’s evidence that your god exists; there are none to be found. > [@aigonz](#): > > 3\> The existence of a god is demonstrated as possible by the evidenece of morality and design, nether of which currently enjoy a satisfactory naturalistic explanation. Again nonsense as has been pointed out over and over. Nature explains morality just fine, and there isn’t any “design” to explain. Nor would a god have anything to do with something being moral even if there were such things as gods. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/694 "2010-09-08T03:49:28Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> DNA just as strongly supports a common designer. What about those sections of DNA that are errors? A prominent example is chunks of retrovirus DNA that got inserted into one of our ancestor’s germ cells, and then gets copied to all its descendants. That chunk of DNA can’t do anything, it’s just a chunk of a virus wedged into our DNA, clearly and unambiguously. And guess what? Animals that share a common ancestor, share the same retrovirus DNA chunks, with possibly some new ones added since the latest common ancestor. We share many of those errors with chimps and the other great apes. This fact is incompatible with the idea of a common designer, unless that designer does so much wholesale copying from one species to another that he copies the mistakes as well. > [@](#): > > 2\> Theistic evolution…no problem for me. I’m a big fan of Francis Collins. Francis Collins’ idea of theistic evolution includes common descent. What about yours? > [@aigonz](#): > > In March 2000 the Harvard University evolutionist and paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould said that he had long been aware of this fraud. But he had preferred to remain silent, as required by the system of the Dajjal. Once the public had learned that the drawings were fraudulent, Gould stated that it was academic murder for them still to be used and said: “We do, I think, have the right, to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks.” If Haeckel’s drawings were presented improperly, then shame on those textbook publishers. However, as with most creationist claims, I don’t think that the picture is what they make it out to be. Patrick Frank dug into a set of 15 prominent biology texts from the last 75 years and found this: > [@](#): > > Of the 15 books, only 5 show Haeckel’s drawings, two in whole, three in part. > > Of those 5, only one presents the biogenetic law uncritically, and that book is the 1937 H. C. Skinner, T. Smith, F. M. Wheat “Textbook in Educational Biology”. > > The other 4 of these 5, along with another 7 that actually mention Haeckel, either dismiss Haeckel’s laws as crude or incorrect, or else critique them in the sense that embryos resemble one another at early stages, but that adaptational pressures have obscured or removed most of the similarities. > > Four textbooks didn’t mention Haeckel at all, or the biogenetic theory. > > The first three entries below, arranged by ascending publication date, are among Pepcis’ list, though the last two are later editions. > > Note that not one of the three support Pepcis’ accusation of fraud propagation. In every case, Haeckel’s law is critiqued, and Storer, et al. end with “Thus there is no precise recapitulation.” > > Notice also that even texts written in the 1920’s discussed the biogenetic law critically, noting the adaptationist pressures on embryos as causative of differentiation among them. That means even before the 1960 date shouted by Pepcis, the biogenetic law was under general critical review in biology. > > In all cases, even where Haeckel’s drawings appear, the representation of what they indicate is critically given and the biogenetic law is rejected as either wrong or a crude approximation. > > There is a clear distinction to be made, therefore, between the presentation of Haeckel’s drawings and the propagation of a myth, most especially deceitful myth, about them. > > There is no apparent evidence of a conspiracy to deceive or of a propagation of myth about Haeckel or his law among biologists. > > However, evidently the reverse is true among creationists, since the evidence doesn’t support their claim. Meaning either they didn’t research the evidence (as Pepcis clearly did not), or else they LIED about it. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/695 "2010-09-08T04:28:18Z")
> [@Apollyon](#): > > …while the mere existence of DNA as a common building block doesn’t prove common descent, the research on molecular evolution … does strongly support common descent… > [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> DNA just as strongly supports a common designer. You might want to re-read what I wrote, and what you appear to disagree with – specifically I was agreeing with you re. the simple existence of a common building block, the key point was regarding molecular evolution. Philosopher of science Karl Popper claimed in the 1970s that darwinism was not a testable scientific theory – his point being that in order for a theory to be good science it must make testable predictions, it must be inherently capable of being falsified, and Popper felt that Darwinian evolution did not make these predictions. Popper subsequently revised his criticism, but the point remains that testable predictions must be possible. A good example of this sort of testable experiment comes from three NZ researchers, and was reported in _Nature_ in 1982. Their argument ran something like this: The sequences of amino acids in proteins conveys evolutionary information, and using this information it is possible to construct a family tree which shows when different species split from ancestral lines. From the information of a single protein it is possible to construct only one family tree that involves the minimum number of mutations. This one tree doesn’t prove evolution either, it just provides a possible explanation of the observed protein differences. But then, the testable prediction: the minimal tree constructed for say _cytochrome c_ from two species should be the same minimal tree for a different protein but the same two species. When the researchers looked at 5 proteins and 11 species (and 34,459,425 possible trees), they found all the trees they did get to be very similar, with statistical analysis showing less than 1 chance in 100,000 that the results were co-incidence. (All based on information from chapter 10 of John Gribbin’s book _In Search of the Double Helix_ – an excellent and very readable science writer). > [@](#): > > 2\> Theistic evolution…no problem for me. I’m a big fan of Francis Collins. Providing there is evidence. Collins seems to think so – and he is not a proponent of ID, so I’m guessing he’s in the “all the rules set up at the beginning” camp rather than, for example, Behe’s irreducible complexity and the implication of a handyman god who has to tinker as he goes along. > [@](#): > > 3\> This isn’t about ‘knowing’ the creator. We’re far enough away frm the original header as it is! Perhaps not, although your arguments have been ranging all over the place, and when object morality enters the conversation we’re making quite a leap from a first cause creator. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/696 "2010-09-08T04:42:34Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Let’s clarify something here. > > Is the naturalistic position that an aversion to murder is: > > a\> a hard wired emotional response, unrelated to ‘survival’ as such, > > or is it > > b\> a neurological response to a subconscious desire for survival? It may be a bit of both, specifically “a” with regards to my family / gene-line / tribe, and “b” with regards to everyone else. Humans in pre-state societies show precious little aversion to the murder of anyone outside of their immediate clan – despite the silliness of the _Noble Savage_ sentimentalism. Studies of the Yanomamo people for example suggest that 1 in 3 adult males died from inter-village warfare, and more importantly – for the naturalist explanations – men who participated in killings had more wives and children than those who did not. That is a pretty strong form of natural selection in favour of bopping the neighbours on the head. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/697 "2010-09-08T05:17:20Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Look I’ll make it easier for you. > > Are you suggesting that we instinctively and unconsciously know not to kill our brother because it will deplete our gene pool in some remote manner? Is that part of the trigger? No. We don’t have “knowledge” of anything. We are instinctively _repulsed_ by the idea because we are biologically hardwired to feel distress when we see injury inflicted on those close to us (i.e. the empathic response). There isn’t any “knwledge” involved. It’s an innate emotional reaction, and we had it before we were even humans. You can still see it in other animals. It isn’t magic, and it isn’t objective. You should be familiar with this response yourself, unless you have had your empathic response damaged in some way. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/698 "2010-09-08T05:21:20Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Chakra Nadmara](#): > > > > We have a natural aversion to murder, which developed from premoral sentiments in earlier primates that created better, more successful societies. It is a hardwired emotional response. It’s not because we know it will “deplete the gene pool”, it’s just an emotional response that evolved out of necessity for us as a social animal. If it did not exist, obvious problems would arise. > > 1. In a tooth and claw society, how did the species survive until this aversion evolved? What the fuck is a “tooth and claw society?” > [@](#): > > 1. Why is this aversion no longer hardwired into all animals? What is this “no longer” shit. It IS wired into many animals. If you’d bothered to check any of the links you’d been provided with, you’d know that. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/699 "2010-09-08T05:25:22Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Let’s clarify something here. > > Is the naturalistic position that an aversion to murder is: > > a\> a hard wired emotional response, unrelated to ‘survival’ as such, > > or is it > > b\> a neurological response to a subconscious desire for survival? It is a. It has nothing to do with a subconscious deisre for survival, anymore than the sex drive really has anything to do with wanting to reproduce. The fact that the empathic response results in more stable communities and more successful reproductive efforts is an incidental result of the emotional responses. None of it has a damn thing to do with the subconscious. Evolution doesn’t work that way. It just so happens that populations with those genes had a better chance of survival than those who did not. The notion that unconscious desires can affect genetics is ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/700 "2010-09-08T06:33:34Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> God cannot be a violation of something He is not subject to. Your proposition is simply illogical. > > More silliness. Your claiming that he isn’t subject to natural law IS claiming that he’s a violation of those laws. > > Even more nonsense. No, the existence of the universe doesn’t “imply god”, nothing does. You are attempting to equate two very different things; we have a universe, right here. We are in it. Claiming that there may be another is just claiming that might be more of something that we already know exists. You can’t point to a god and claim that’s evidence that your god exists; there are none to be found. > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 3\> The existence of a god is demonstrated as possible by the evidenece of morality and design, nether of which currently enjoy a satisfactory naturalistic explanation. > > Again nonsense as has been pointed out over and over. Nature explains morality just fine, and there isn’t any “design” to explain. Nor would a god have anything to do with something being moral even if there were such things as gods. 1\> Not being subject to natural laws doesn’t mean God violates them. I’m not subject to the laws of Iceland, but I don’t violate them by not living in Iceland. 2\> The universe exists. Nothing that exists has EVER come into existence without cause. Eiither the universe has always existed, or it had a first cause. That first cause is either an intelligence beyond the universe, or it is a natural event that deifies all current eplanation and observation. 3\> Re morality…we’ll get to that… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=34) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=36)